A Muslim Iman that I actually like and wish the best. . . but

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

why would a straight couple want a gay wedding cake?

They wanted a cake. They didn't say they wanted a "gay" cake. They didn't say they wanted it to be rainbow colored or say gay people are the best or have two men holding hands on it. He could reject that.

He cannot, based on the law, reject to make them a white cake with blue flowers or whatever because it would be eaten at a wedding for people of the same sex. If he would make a white cake with blue flowers for a wedding of straight people, it is discrimination to not make it for any group of gay people, black people, Mormons, Mennonites, Catholics, etc.

[spence]

Originally Posted by zimmy

He cannot, based on the law, reject to make them a white cake with blue flowers or whatever because it would be eaten at a wedding for people of the same sex. If he would make a white cake with blue flowers for a wedding of straight people, it is discrimination to not make it for any group of gay people, black people, Mormons, Mennonites, Catholics, etc.

I wonder if he realized that gay couples already eat his cakes all the time at weddings. I also wonder how many cakes he's made for same sex weddings that were brokered by wedding planners and he had no idea.

He seems personally concerned as to how his talents are used, which I would assume to mean he puts love into his cakes to celebrate the love of a union.

Perhaps he should focus less on the sex and more on the love.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I wonder

Perhaps he should focus less on the sex and more on the love.

Perhaps you should read the first amendment. It doesn’t say that freedom of religion only applies to people who, according to you, are sufficiently focused on love.

I am in favor of gay marriage. I’m also in favor of upholding the constitution. It’s not mutually exclusive.

Maybe the gay couple could practice the tolerance they expect from others, and use another baker.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

They wanted a cake. They didn't say they wanted a "gay" cake. They didn't say they wanted it to be rainbow colored or say gay people are the best or have two men holding hands on it. He could reject that.

He cannot, based on the law, reject to make them a white cake with blue flowers or whatever because it would be eaten at a wedding for people of the same sex. If he would make a white cake with blue flowers for a wedding of straight people, it is discrimination to not make it for any group of gay people, black people, Mormons, Mennonites, Catholics, etc.

Based on Colorado law, he cannot refuse to bake a cake just because it will be used at a gay wedding.

But according to the first amendment to the us constitution, which trumps Colorado law, he absolutely can. Congress shall pass no law which interferes with the free exercise of religion.

If he is an atheist who just hates gays, the constitution doesn’t afford him the right to refuse. But if his objection is based on religious beliefs, he absolutely has that right. How do you read the first amendment and not agree?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If he is an atheist who just hates gays, the constitution doesn’t afford him the right to refuse. But if his objection is based on religious beliefs, he absolutely has that right.

Is that a choice of his or was he just born that way?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Is that a choice of his or was he just born that way?

His religious beliefs? They are a choice. And the constitution says he has the right to act according to that choice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But if his objection is based on religious beliefs, he absolutely has that right. How do you read the first amendment and not agree?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Legal precedent.

I know you said you are a simple guy, so you can appreciate this line from US vs Lee (1982): Not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional.

"... the Supreme Court has set limits on freedom of speech and religion. "

Civil Rights Act of 1964 has withstood more than a half century of tests.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Legal precedent.

I know you said you are a simple guy, so you can appreciate this line from US vs Lee (1982): Not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional.

"... the Supreme Court has set limits on freedom of speech and religion. "

Civil Rights Act of 1964 has withstood more than a half century of tests.

You make some good points.

But, according to Obama's federal government, if Muslim truckers don't want to transport alcohol for religious reasons, their employer was ordered to use other drivers. Using that same logic, why can't gay couples just use another baker who welcomes their trade. I don't see the difference.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You make some good points.

But, according to Obama's federal government, if Muslim truckers don't want to transport alcohol for religious reasons, their employer was ordered to use other drivers. Using that same logic, why can't gay couples just use another baker who welcomes their trade. I don't see the difference.

I would have to read the details of the ruling. One inherent difference is that one case apparently involves employees and the other involves a business owner.

I imagine the questions revolved around the burden placed on the business to use other drivers, but I am just guessing.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You make some good points.

But, according to Obama's federal government, if Muslim truckers don't want to transport alcohol for religious reasons, their employer was ordered to use other drivers. Using that same logic, why can't gay couples just use another baker who welcomes their trade. I don't see the difference.

Here you go. It is about an employer/employee relationship, not a business refusing a service.


"Our investigation revealed that Star could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees' Islamic religion," said EEOC District Director John P. Rowe when the suit was filed...

If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost 50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case."
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...eliver-alcohol

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Here you go. It is about an employer/employee relationship, not a business refusing a service.


"Our investigation revealed that Star could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees' Islamic religion," said EEOC District Director John P. Rowe when the suit was filed...

If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost 50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case."
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...eliver-alcohol

I absolutely hear what you are say9ng - and again, good points.

But I have to believe that (just as the tr#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g company owner could re-assign drivers), it would also be very easy for the engaged couple to get another baker. I guarantee that the vast majority of bakeries would be more than willing to cater a gay wedding. It cannot be an unreasonable hardship to get another baker.

What do you think?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I absolutely hear what you are say9ng - and again, good points.

But I have to believe that (just as the tr#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g company owner could re-assign drivers), it would also be very easy for the engaged couple to get another baker. I guarantee that the vast majority of bakeries would be more than willing to cater a gay wedding. It cannot be an unreasonable hardship to get another baker.

What do you think?

What if he was the only wedding cake baker in town?

[DZ]

What's lost in all this about the bakery is that potential customers with any kind of clear reasoning would have taken their business elsewhere if they found the bakery not conducive to their request. Something about a free market and decisions. Will be interesting to see how the SC rules. With the gay couples reasoning every baker should have to bake a penis cake whether it offends the baker or not. The reason I posted the video.

[spence]

Originally Posted by DZ

With the gay couples reasoning every baker should have to bake a penis cake whether it offends the baker or not. The reason I posted the video.

I don't think that's the issue at all though. There's a simple test, is the request for a cake that would be generally seen as offensive? A penis cake wouldn't pass this test.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

They wanted a cake. They didn't say they wanted a "gay" cake. They didn't say they wanted it to be rainbow colored .

Yesterday afternoon, 28-year-old Dave Mullins and 31-year-old Charlie Craig stopped by Lakewood's Masterpiece Cakeshop to order their wedding reception cake -- what they hoped would be a rainbow-layered masterpiece decked out in teal and red frosting (their ceremony colors). Although they'll be reciting their vows in Provincetown, Massachusetts, in September, the couple plans to celebrate with a reception for friends and family in Denver in October. But after bakery owner Jack Phillips listened to their request, they say, he refused it. His business doesn't create cakes for gay weddings.

"It was the most awkward, surreal, very brief encounter," Mullins says. "We got up to leave, and to be totally honest, I said, '#^&#^&#^&#^& you and your homophobic cake shop.' And I may or may not have flipped him off."

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

decked out in teal and red frosting (their ceremony colors).

I'm beginning to wonder if they are really gay. C'mon Teal and Red....talk about clashing. They should know better

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

, I said, '#^&#^&#^&#^& you and your homophobic cake shop.' And I may or may not have flipped him off."

Sure. Because of liberal tolerance and respect and inclusion. Right?

No irony there, nope.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

But after bakery owner Jack Phillips listened to their request, they say, he refused it. His business doesn't create cakes for gay weddings.

"

Not sure where you found that quote, but court record has it that design was never discussed with Philips before he refused them

"The gay couple never even had the opportunity to discuss designs with Phillips, because the baker made it immediately clear that he would not sell them any wedding cake at all. " https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/o...ding-cake.html

“We went in with a bunch of ideas,” said Mullins, 33. “But [Phillips] came in, asked who the cake was for and then he said he wouldn’t make a cake for us. We were shocked and mortified and got up and left.”
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...912-story.html

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Not sure where you found that quote, but court record has it that design was never discussed with Philips before he refused them

ml[/url]

it would be interesting to see a link to where he got that quote
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

it would be interesting to see a link to where he got that quote
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Kelsey Whipple from Westword.com in Denver published a sympathetic article the day after the incident which included several quotes from the aggrieved....

http://www.westword.com/restaurants/...couple-5727921